backtop


Print 69 comment(s) - last by 16nm.. on Dec 3 at 1:43 PM


Megan Meier's neighbor Ms. Drew was found guilty of misdemeanor charges surrounding her allegedly spurring Meier to kill herself, but found not guilty of three more serious felony charges.  (Source: Myspace)
Family and friends search for closure in final verdict

The case of Lori Drew and her role in the suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier was a controversial one.  Meier was a teenager who suffered from bouts of depression, but was generally characterized and good-natured and outgoing.  When she committed suicide after an argument with her mother, it seemed like nothing more than a tragic case of teenage mental illness gone awry. 

However, then it came out that the argument with her mother was over cruel comments from a boy online who allegedly initially romanced her on MySpace and then turned hostile, eventually dropping a hint that the world might be a better place if she left it.  The only thing out of the ordinary -- the teenage boy, wasn't really a teenage boy; it was neighbor Lori Drew who wanted to allegedly "get Meier back" for supposed mean behavior towards her daughter.

When this came to light, federal authorities sidestepped local authorities, which would likely have delivered no charges.  They charged Ms. Drew with a variety of misdemeanors as well as four felony counts.

The trial was long and heated, with Ms. Drew's attorney arguing that Meier's suicide was less the result of MySpace, and more the result of a history of mental illness and that Ms. Drew could not be held responsible for not reading MySpace’s EULA, because "no one" does.  Meanwhile, prosecutors painted Ms. Drew as a mean-spirited woman who tormented young Meier and drove her to her unfortunate end.

In the end the jury found Ms. Drew guilty of three misdemeanor charges, while clearing her of three of the felony charges and reaching a deadlock in a fourth felony charge.  The result is that Ms. Drew will be sentenced to anything from probation to three years behind bars, avoiding felony sentencing which could have put her in prison for 20 years.

The reason the jury found her not guilty on the felony counts was due to lack of proof that Ms. Drew had typed the MySpace messages that drove Meier apparently to suicide.  The messages may also have been typed by Ms. Drew's employee or daughter, both of which were privy to Ms. Drew's scheme.

Tina Meier, Megan's mother says that despite the mixed nature of the verdict, that it's a victory.  She states, "This is about justice.  It's justice not only for Megan but it's justice for everybody who has had to go through this with the computer and being harassed."

MySpace Chief Security Officer Hemanshu Nigam also praised the decision, stating, "MySpace respects the jury's decision and will continue to work with industry experts to raise awareness of cyber-bullying and the harm it can potentially cause."

The greatest impact of the case may be to spur government officials to enact new cyberbullying laws, which could allow criminal charges for those who goad youth into suicide.  Meier's case is not alone in this respect -- recently a teenager was encouraged by hundreds of onlookers in a video chat room to take pills and kill himself, which he did, dying hours later as the cameras rolled.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By createcoms on 12/1/2008 3:11:54 AM , Rating: 2
I think this psycho mum has gotten her comeback from the neighborhood she lived in.

http://pysih.com/2007/11/19/lori-drew/

RIP Megan Meier, you were not alone in your pain despite it feeling that way.....




By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/1/2008 6:28:49 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for that link.
Does Lori Drew deserve Hell?
Yes.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/1/2008 10:13:35 AM , Rating: 2
Community Justice is also better known as "Mob Rule". We do not tolerate such behavior in the USA, as we are a Republic built on Laws.


By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/1/2008 11:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
Community Justice is also better known as "Mob Rule"
I hear it only from lawyers.

Step out for a moment of your legally binding contract by witch you live your life, and look at the bigger picture of what is fundamentally right and wrong, though I understand that in this age it's buried so deep down beneath that without the help of qualified jurist it's hardly possible to find it. Viva Social progress.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/1/2008 1:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
look at the bigger picture of what is fundamentally right and wrong

Right and Wrong is a matter of opinion and point of view. Right and Wrong are up for discussion regardless of the issue at hand. Laws dictate what is right and wrong in the justice system. Right and Wrong on the topic of whatever you or anyone else holds to be right and wrong due to your belief system is irrelevant.


By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/1/2008 2:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
Right and Wrong is a matter of opinion and point of view.

Every action of human being that causes harm to another human being is fundamentally wrong. It is not matter of opinion, religious dogmas nor points of view, but congenital knowledge of, and in, our existence.
Ask your friend to inflict a slight kick in the crotch when you least expect it, this way you will know the answer why pain is not topic for heated debate but universal and inherent to all people.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/1/2008 4:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every action of human being that causes harm to another human being is fundamentally wrong.

Bad example and here's why.

Buying a product that comes from a factory known to treat its employees very badly. Thus continuing the cycle of harm to these people.

In a war zone, dropping bombs on enemy troops. This causes harm on human lives.

I drive my car, thus creating pollution that causes breathing difficulty in kids in my area, thus harming them.

Giving aid to countries that oppress and treat its citizens very badly, thus aiding the government in continuing it.

Basically, your point of view on what is wrong is based on a religious or spiritual source and not in law. But thanks for playing.


By werepossum on 12/1/2008 5:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bad example and here's why.

Buying a product that comes from a factory known to treat its employees very badly. Thus continuing the cycle of harm to these people.

In a war zone, dropping bombs on enemy troops. This causes harm on human lives.

I drive my car, thus creating pollution that causes breathing difficulty in kids in my area, thus harming them.

Giving aid to countries that oppress and treat its citizens very badly, thus aiding the government in continuing it.

Basically, your point of view on what is wrong is based on a religious or spiritual source and not in law. But thanks for playing.


Thus speaks the moral relativist. There is no right and wrong; there is only what you can get away with, and what you cannot get away with.

Laws are of man. Without right and wrong, there is no reason the majority cannot pass a law requiring everyone of your skin color (or hair color/religion/ethnic background/sexual orientation/socio-economic class/etc.) to be shot like dogs on sight. This has happened over and over in history, and will doubtless happen again. No one is safe. Laws are either based on absolute right and wrong (i.e. delivered from G-d) or are based on what best serves the interests of those in power. Many - like you, evidently - prefer the latter. I prefer the former. In your world, Lori Drew is somewhat of a hero, having cleverly skirted the law to work her will. In my world, she is an evil creature deserving to have every hand turned against her.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/1/2008 6:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well, your merely echoing the spiritual beliefs in what you would consider for laws. Frankly "absolute right and wrong" is a myth. While I do not condone her actions here, there was nothing legally wrong with them. The lynch mob mentality I'm seeing and the outcry for blood as a result of this suicide case is rediculous and has no basis in the laws at hand.


By MatthiasF on 12/1/2008 8:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
You're far too shortsighted. The woman broke harassment, stalking and battery laws. What she did was illegal, just because they couldn't get the necessary evidence was more to do with the circumstances than any "truths".


By spread on 12/1/2008 11:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
She was absolved of those.

Stalking? Its too easy online, barely considered stalking. All the information was freely given up by the victim.

Battery? With what?
Am I battering you now with my typed words?

Somebody call the waaambulance.

Bottom line is that she was absolved of those grievances against her because the jury found there was a lack of evidence or it simply wasn't strong enough. The only thing she was convicted for so far was violating the EULA of the website which breaks a few cyber laws.


By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/1/2008 8:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
Bad example and here's why
Why?

Buying a product that comes from a factory known to treat its employees very badly. Thus continuing the cycle of harm to these people

It is called modern day slavery. World Health Organization works closely with governments to stipulate any possible prevention of this wrongdoing by dishonest business, supports and encourage people to complain to their local authorities if such bad practices take place. Because slavery is fundamentally wrong.

In a war zone, dropping bombs on enemy troops. This causes harm on human lives.

That is why people for ages write history books, to show the consequences of war massacre on human body and spirit. Not letting the situation to go as far and beyond the point of no return and no choice, trying to prevent new war of happening again.
Because war is fundamentally wrong.

I drive my car, thus creating pollution that causes breathing difficulty in kids in my area, thus harming them.

That is why so many articles even here on daily tech is dedicated to this environmental issue, this is why our best minds working over this problem on how to continue without drastic change and transitions to live our modern life and not causing health problems to ourselves. Because hurting yourself is fundamentally wrong.

Giving aid to countries that oppress and treat its citizens very badly, thus aiding the government in continuing it.

Every government is a result of past mistakes and decisions made by all native of particular place, until they will not admit that to themselves, they will all suffer from oppression.

Basically, your point of view on what is wrong is based on a religious or spiritual source and not in law.

I think people from time to time need to put their books away and look into inner self for finding the source of an answer.


By HinderedHindsight on 12/2/2008 12:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Community Justice is also better known as "Mob Rule". We do not tolerate such behavior in the USA, as we are a Republic built on Laws.


Keep in mind that this Republic long maintained laws which denied women and blacks the right to vote; these laws can be said to have been maintained by a "mob rule."

So if this is your claim to excuse Drew of any wrong doing and validate the verdict of the jury, I would say its shaky at best. You can find plenty of juries who upheld morally bankrupt laws in our history.

I'm not saying anything either way about this particular case. I'm just pointing out that this argument is perhaps not the most sound one.


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki